Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[LouieB]

Yep. He does it on both sides, btw, and did vote for Obama (and probably will again).

Yea, and he is a gazilionaire, so go figure.

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

Plenty of gazilionaire democrats.

[LouieB]

Well two things we can be reasonably sure of;

1. The Fed is not going away.

2. Mitt Romney is not going to President of the United States.

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

And if I may, to counter any arguments, I think it showed a lack of understanding by PBO not to meet with world leaders today. As a reference, last year PBO met with 13 world leaders. If this thread is any indication, it seems that no one cares about foreign policy in this race (other then maybe me and Tweedling).

But he sure looked good on Letterman and the View.

[Sparky speaks]

Check out what Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher said the other day....

 

"The truth, however, is that nobody on the committee, nor on our staffs at the Board of Governors and the 12 Banks, really knows what is holding back the economy. Nobody really knows what will work to get the economy back on course. And nobody – in fact, no central bank anywhere on the planet – has the experience of successfully navigating a return home from the place in which we now find ourselves. No central bank – not, at least, the Federal Reserve – has ever been on this cruise before."

 

Way to instill confidence Rich. It is the cruise of no return sort of like the Titanic.

 

Morgan Stanley's, Adam Parker wrote...

 

"QE3 will likely be insufficient to significantly boost equity markets and we wouldn’t be at all surprised to see the Fed dramatically augment this program (i.e., QE4) before year-end, particularly if economic and corporate news continue to deteriorate as they have over the past few weeks."

 

The bankers are already counting on QE4(more money creation) before they have received a dime from QE3. They know the extent of the disaster we are facing but most folks are clueless. See the Howard Stern clip.

 

Here's how the Federal Reserve is destroying Social Security...

 

"By law, the Social Security trust fund must be invested in U.S. government securities. But thanks to the low interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve, the average interest rate on those securities just keeps dropping and dropping. The trustees of the Social Security system had projected that the Social Security trust fund would be completely gone by 2033, but because of the Fed policy of keeping interest rates exceptionally low for the foreseeable future it is now being projected by some analysts that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2023. Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years. Yes, you read that correctly. The collapse of Social Security is inevitable, and the foolish policies of the Federal Reserve are going to make that collapse happen much more rapidly."

 

The Fed policies over the past four years have not eased unemployment so why are they continuing them? Continuing the same failed policies and expecting a different result is insane.

 

 

Their policies will do nothing but pump up stock prices in the short term and make the wealthy wealthier at our expense.

The "exceptionally low interest rate" policy of the Federal Reserve is absolutely devastating for those that have saved for retirement and that are relying on interest income for their living expenses.

 

Why should the rest of the world continue to use the U.S. dollar to trade with one another when the United States is constantly debasing it and playing games with its value? Soon other nations will wake up to this reality and scrap the dollar for some other currency. Most likely the new Chinese Yuan which will be backed by gold. http://www.zerohedge...backed-currency Wait to see what things will cost using US fiat currency when that happens.

 

From Thomas Woods...

 

The most significant argument against the Fed, though, is not political but economic. The Austrian view is that a central bank is not merely unnecessary but harmful. There is no need for a monopoly institution, by means of artificial money creation, to prevent the natural and healthy phenomenon of falling prices. There is likewise no need for a “lender of last resort” for the banking industry any more than for the personal computer industry or the shellfish industry. As long as the banking system is run on sound principles—an unlikely outcome, while there is a central bank with powers to prop up unsound banks—there is no reason for the bankruptcy of one or two major banks to provoke a systemic crisis, as can happen under the Fed system.

 

Then there are the problems that stem from artificial money creation. Not only do people on fixed incomes suffer from the rising prices that increases in the money supply bring about, but the process of money creation inevitably enriches politically well-connected groups at the expense of everyone else. The powerful are in a position to receive the newly created money first and spend it before prices have commensurately risen.

 

Under fiat money, currency without commodity backing, the central bank can artificially lower interest rates by increasing the supply of money—and thus the funds banks have available to lend—through the banking system. This is supposed to stimulate the economy. What it actually does is mislead investors into embarking on investments that the artificially low rates seem to validate but that cannot be sustained under existing economic conditions. Unprofitable investments are made to seem profitable, and over time the result is the squandering of untold resources in lines of investment that should never have been begun.

 

If lower interest rates are the result of increased saving by the public, those greater saved resources provide the means with which to see the additional investment through to completion. But the situation is very different when lower interest rates result from the Fed’s creation of new money out of thin air. In that case, lower rates do not reflect an increase in the pool of savings from which investors can draw. Fed tinkering, in other words, does not increase the real stuff in the economy. The additional investment that the lower rates encourage therefore leads the economy down a path that is not sustainable.

 

You see, the policies of the Federal Reserve are the most important issues not being discussed by either candidate.

[lost highway]

And if I may, to counter any arguments, I think it showed a lack of understanding by PBO not to meet with world leaders today. As a reference, last year PBO met with 13 world leaders. If this thread is any indication, it seems that no one cares about foreign policy in this race (other then maybe me and Tweedling).

 

I'm with you on this. I think one challenge to conversation is this: What can anyone say about Iran? I'm sure someone on here can say more. At this point my perspective isn't much more than "oh, shit, oh, shit, what do we do?". I'm against war. Period. I also don't know at this point how we will constructively avoid a war with Iran. Someone with more background knowledge please chime in.

[Sparky speaks]

Didn't we avoid war with the USSR and China for over a half century? We can avoid war with Iran by minding our own business. We have been told since 1992 that Iran is on the verge of nuclear weapons. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/20/1992-breaking-news-netanyahu-says-iran-close-to-nuclear-weapon/ The lies continue. We marched into the Middle East we can march out to paraphrase the former presidential candidate from Texas. It is that simple. Neither Obama nor Romney will have the balls to stand up to Israel and tell them to we are not going to back them if they attack Iran. We have hundreds of bases surrounding Iran. It is part of the neocon plan to attack them. See Wesley Clark's interview from 2007 below...

 

 

Remember, this is from 2007. There is only one country left on that list.

 

[uncool2pillow]

The Soviet Union and China understood the principle of M.A.D. Does Iran? They may be able to destroy Israel, but not the U.S. Does Ahmadinejad care? Iran with nukes causes more problems than the direct threat of a direct attack from Iran on Israel or other U.S. interests. It poses the real danger of nukes in the hands of jihadists.

 

I am not advocating war. This country cannot afford (fiscally, emotionally, militarily) another war. But, damn, this sure is a pickle. It'll sure be a mess if Israel takes this on their own, but it may be the best option.

[Sparky speaks]

[lost highway]

I totally agree with Sparky on this. So there.

[LouieB]

The Israelis attacking Iran could be an October suprise for an election that is clearly going Obamas way. Does Romney have enough pull with Netanyahu to get him to get Obama to look bad on this?? In the long run the US will support Israel if they bomb Iran no matter who is president. Or will they? No one knows.

 

LouieB

[Sparky speaks]

I totally agree with Sparky on this. So there.

 

There's hope for you yet.

[ih8music]

Tweedy on CurrentTV

 

http://current.com/s...ou-need-to-vote

http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/videos/wilco-exclusive-backstage-outtakes-with-jeff-tweedy

[KevinG]

Tweedy on CurrentTV

 

http://current.com/s...ou-need-to-vote

http://current.com/s...ith-jeff-tweedy

 

You know what I have always found funny (in a peculiar sort of way) that those that lean left seem to want to make it easier for everyone to vote and those that lean right tend to want to make it harder to vote.

[LouieB]

Well its obvious isn't it. Particularly this time out.

 

Good little interview. Clearly they edited it down and make Jeff look better then he does in the outtakes, so kudos to the editors at Cuirrent. These clips must piss some folks off here on both ends of the political spectrum. On the right because clearly Jeff supports Obama and on the left because Jeff clearly STILL supports Obama. Kudos to Jeff!!

 

LouieB

[Guest Jules]

Why would it matter to anyone?

[ih8music]

You know what I have always found funny (in a peculiar sort of way) that those that lean left seem to want to make it easier for everyone to vote and those that lean right tend to want to make it harder to vote.

 

Ideally, yes everyone should want as many people to vote as possible.

 

But first and foremost, they want their horse in the race to win. It's just the demographics of conservative vs. liberal voters -- I suspect the Headcount folks aren't canvassing tea party rallies or southern churches with the same gusto as at a rock concert, nor does the GOP really need them to.

[KevinG]

Ideally, yes everyone should want as many people to vote as possible.

 

But first and foremost, they want their horse in the race to win.

 

But to look at what the GOP is doing, voter ID, voter purge etc. it seems a bit more nefarious and underhanded.

 

I said it before, the GOP will try to win the election by hook or by crook.

[ih8music]

But to look at what the GOP is doing, voter ID, voter purge etc. it seems a bit more nefarious and underhanded.

 

I said it before, the GOP will try to win the election by hook or by crook.

 

Trust me, I'm not defending those tactics, but I understand them. If the state-by-state polls are accurate, Obama is looking at a big EC win -- RCP has him winning every swing state right now. The GOP needs to use every tactic, dirty or not, in their arsenal to get the election to swing the other way.

 

To put it another way, if the situation was reversed I wouldn't put it past some Democrats to do some things that could be looked upon as unsavory. Do I think the two parties are equal in that regard? Not really, but I don't think one is all evil and the other is pure and innocent. Obama has said it himself - politics is a contact sport.

[lost highway]

Why would it matter to anyone?

 

That Wilco supports Obama, or that the GOP is making it harder to vote?

[Sparky speaks]

Tweedy convinced me...I'm voting for Gary Johnson.

[Sparky speaks]

 

 

These are the assholes who have the ears of our leaders...

 

Israeli Lobbyist Blatantly Suggests a False Flag Event for War With Iran

 

Even in the age of YouTube, this is pretty stunning. This is the response of Patrick Clawson, who heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what should happen if negotiations with Tehran fail.

 

[Sparky speaks]

Quantitative Easing Did Not Work For The Weimar Republic Either

 

Did printing vast quantities of money work for the Weimar Republic? Nope. And it won't work for us either. If printing money was the secret to economic success, we could just print up a trillion dollars for every American and be done with it. The truth is that making everyone in America a trillionaire would not mean that we would all suddenly be wealthy. There would be the same amount of "real wealth" in our economy as before. But what it would do is render our currency meaningless and totally destroy faith in our financial system. Sadly, we have not learned the lessons that history has tried to teach us. Back in April 1919, it took 12 German marks to get 1 U.S. dollar. By December 1923, it took approximately 4 trillion German marks to get 1 U.S. dollar. So was the Weimar Republic better off after all of the "quantitative easing" that they did or worse off? Of course they were worse off. They destroyed their currency and wrecked all confidence in their financial system. There was an old joke that if you left a wheelbarrow full of money sitting around in the Weimar Republic that thieves would take the wheelbarrow and they would leave the money behind. Will things eventually get that bad in the United States someday?

Of course we are not going to see hyperinflation in the U.S. this week or this month.

But don't think that it will never happen.

The people of Germany never thought that it would happen to them, but it did.

 

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/quantitative-easing-did-not-work-for-the-weimar-republic-either

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

The Israelis attacking Iran could be an October suprise for an election that is clearly going Obamas way. Does Romney have enough pull with Netanyahu to get him to get Obama to look bad on this?? In the long run the US will support Israel if they bomb Iran no matter who is president. Or will they? No one knows.

 

LouieB

 

Wartime Presidents get reelected. If there is an October attack, more than likely Obama would benefit.

[MrRain422]

The Soviet Union and China understood the principle of M.A.D. Does Iran? They may be able to destroy Israel, but not the U.S. Does Ahmadinejad care? Iran with nukes causes more problems than the direct threat of a direct attack from Iran on Israel or other U.S. interests. It poses the real danger of nukes in the hands of jihadists.

 

I am not advocating war. This country cannot afford (fiscally, emotionally, militarily) another war. But, damn, this sure is a pickle. It'll sure be a mess if Israel takes this on their own, but it may be the best option.

 

You know Ahmadinejad can't do anything without the Ayatollah, right? Whether or not Ahmadinejad understands MAD means jackshit because he couldn't drop any hypothetical bombs anyway. He's a nutbar who is easily vilified in the west but he isn't actually very powerful at all.